You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

dlthomas comments on What independence between ZFC and P vs NP would imply - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: alexflint 08 December 2011 02:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (62)

Comments (62)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: dlthomas 08 December 2011 07:07:32PM *  3 points [-]

I wasn't feeling superior to you because you chose to reference non-MWI QM - I'm not confident about MWI myself, and would prefer we keep other interpretations alive until we can distinguish on the basis of evidence (or at least have a strong argument that space complexity deserves no place at all in our priors).

I am feeling superior to you now because you ignored a prevalent interpretation without giving mention to what interpretation you were using, and then when I tried to clarify you launched into a rant.

Comment author: prase 08 December 2011 11:03:14PM 0 points [-]

Is it really necessary to publish one's superior feelings?

Comment author: dlthomas 08 December 2011 11:10:00PM 1 point [-]

Generally? No, not at all. Here, it was specifically a response to statements to the effect of "you're only bringing up MWI as an excuse to feel superior."

Comment author: prase 09 December 2011 12:29:07AM 0 points [-]

Still, I find it preferable if people keep their potentially offensive feelings private, even if these feelings arose as a reaction to being accused of having such feelings.

Comment author: dlthomas 09 December 2011 01:18:52AM 1 point [-]

I offered the above more as explanation than defense. I certainly respect your point of view here; I have some further thoughts, but I'd rather sift through them a bit as I'm not sure they're actually coherent.

Comment author: prase 09 December 2011 11:24:46AM 0 points [-]

Fair enough.

Comment author: shminux 08 December 2011 08:02:54PM -1 points [-]

without giving mention to what interpretation you were using

The math of QM does not require an interpretation, so I refrain from using any.

Comment author: dlthomas 08 December 2011 08:07:10PM 2 points [-]

Then refrain.

Quantum Mechanics is a classic counterexample, as far as we know, in a sense that there is no deeper underlying theory that would predict an outcome of a measurement when QM says it cannot be determined.

This is not refraining from picking a model - this is choosing to reify certain classes of interpretation. If you are saying, "The math is just what the math is, and says nothing more" then it doesn't purport to be complete in the first place, and isn't a counterexample.

Comment author: shminux 08 December 2011 10:41:48PM 0 points [-]

Seems like we are talking past each other (happens quite often whenever the MWI is mentioned), so I will disengage.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit